State department: Hillary did not comply with policies

[Jhhnn]

The only person who ever said it was a "security review" was Clinton and her supporters. The FBI had to come out and say "we don't do reviews, we do investigations". They don't investigate for that long spinning their wheels, they do it because they are building a case. If they found nothing the investigation would have been done a long time ago and they wouldn't have offered immunity to anyone.

You don't offer immunity to people if you don't plan on prosecuting. That's just not how it works.

Dancing on the head of a rhetorical pin, huh?

Pagliani asserted his 5th amendment rights which is not an indication of guilt other than among the feeble minded. The FBI granting him immunity is obviously because they want to know what he can tell them.

Reading more than that into it is unwarranted.

 

[Phoenix86]

Dancing on the head of a rhetorical pin, huh?

Pagliani asserted his 5th amendment rights which is not an indication of guilt other than among the feeble minded. The FBI granting him immunity is obviously because they want to know what he can tell them.

Reading more than that into it is unwarranted.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a0f.../origin-key-clinton-emails-report-are-mystery

Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before — including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.

Clinton told Abedin she was open to getting a separate email address but didn't want "any risk of the personal being accessible." Clinton never used an official State Department address, only using several private addresses to communicate. Abedin, Mills, Sullivan and Reines all also used private email addresses to conduct business, along with their government accounts.

Two other emails sent to Abedin were cited in the inspector general's report, but also did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton. Those messages to Abedin contained warnings in January 2011 from an unidentified aide to former President Bill Clinton who said he had to shut down Hillary Clinton's New York-based server because of suspected hacking attacks.

In response, Abedin warned Mills and Sullivan not to email Clinton "anything sensitive" and said she would "explain more in person."

So she didn't report these attacks, as she was supposed to. These emails were sent to her but they weren't found in her mailbox, where did they go? Did she delete important mail before complying with the order? That might be obstruction of justice.

Probably a pinhead though.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Wow hadn't read that, this just keeps getting worse. There's no good option this election cycle. I voted for Obama twice. May go Trump this time, or may sit it out.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a0f.../origin-key-clinton-emails-report-are-mystery

Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before — including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.

Clinton told Abedin she was open to getting a separate email address but didn't want "any risk of the personal being accessible." Clinton never used an official State Department address, only using several private addresses to communicate. Abedin, Mills, Sullivan and Reines all also used private email addresses to conduct business, along with their government accounts.

Two other emails sent to Abedin were cited in the inspector general's report, but also did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton. Those messages to Abedin contained warnings in January 2011 from an unidentified aide to former President Bill Clinton who said he had to shut down Hillary Clinton's New York-based server because of suspected hacking attacks.

In response, Abedin warned Mills and Sullivan not to email Clinton "anything sensitive" and said she would "explain more in person."

So she didn't report these attacks, as she was supposed to. These emails were sent to her but they weren't found in her mailbox, where did they go? Did she delete important mail before complying with the order? That might be obstruction of justice.

Probably a pinhead though.

Shifting quickly to a different angle, I see, away from the previous dance routine.

An obstruction of justice charge can only be leveled as it relates to the commission of a crime, as with the outing of Valerie Plame & Scooter Libby. There has been no official declaration that any crime was committed in this affair. There can be no obstruction of justice w/o such a charge.

 

[LegendKiller]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5a0f.../origin-key-clinton-emails-report-are-mystery

Hillary Clinton was supposed to have turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public. But an agency audit found at least three emails never seen before — including Clinton's own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private.

Clinton told Abedin she was open to getting a separate email address but didn't want "any risk of the personal being accessible." Clinton never used an official State Department address, only using several private addresses to communicate. Abedin, Mills, Sullivan and Reines all also used private email addresses to conduct business, along with their government accounts.

Two other emails sent to Abedin were cited in the inspector general's report, but also did not turn up among the emails released by Clinton. Those messages to Abedin contained warnings in January 2011 from an unidentified aide to former President Bill Clinton who said he had to shut down Hillary Clinton's New York-based server because of suspected hacking attacks.

In response, Abedin warned Mills and Sullivan not to email Clinton "anything sensitive" and said she would "explain more in person."

So she didn't report these attacks, as she was supposed to. These emails were sent to her but they weren't found in her mailbox, where did they go? Did she delete important mail before complying with the order? That might be obstruction of justice.

Probably a pinhead though.

Of course she deleted emails. Her people combed through them and eliminated what would make her look bad, then wiped the rest.

Anybody who has been through e-discovery knows how this works. If you're a lay person, you don't delete a single fucking thing and anything even remotely considered responsive to the subpoena or request is turned over, whole. Why the hell else would you risk being accused to obstruction?

It's plainly evident by now she's never told the truth. She's obfuscated, lied, spun, and avoided this. The media lapped it up until they couldn't ignore it any longer and now they are shocked.

This is no surprise to anybody following this and looking at it truthfully.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course she deleted emails. Her people combed through them and eliminated what would make her look bad, then wiped the rest.

Anybody who has been through e-discovery knows how this works. If you're a lay person, you don't delete a single fucking thing and anything even remotely considered responsive to the subpoena or request is turned over, whole. Why the hell else would you risk being accused to obstruction?

It's plainly evident by now she's never told the truth. She's obfuscated, lied, spun, and avoided this. The media lapped it up until they couldn't ignore it any longer and now they are shocked.

This is no surprise to anybody following this and looking at it truthfully.

Clinton's initial email release was not made in response to a subpoena but rather to a request from the State Dept made to 5 former SoS in 2014.

Page 4-

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

 

[werepossum]

First, sweetie, the issues about what Clinton did and did not turn over, when she did it, and how she did it, have been reported for ages, and discussed here again and again. That's not new. The only thing new is the IG's take on it. More to my point, however, it's "old news" in the sense that it's already been covered in this thread. You pasting it all again added nothing new.

lol As I pointed out, everything with you is either "we know nothing" or "that's old news". Of course, your "we know nothing" doesn't stop you from claiming that it's all propaganda. And if Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) believe it, why, then it's just very effective propaganda.

The FBI gave the server admin immunity in early march.

Supposedly before they realized that all Pagliani's emails had also disappeared. If true, that negates any claim of an actual investigation.

Of course she deleted emails. Her people combed through them and eliminated what would make her look bad, then wiped the rest.

Anybody who has been through e-discovery knows how this works. If you're a lay person, you don't delete a single fucking thing and anything even remotely considered responsive to the subpoena or request is turned over, whole. Why the hell else would you risk being accused to obstruction?

It's plainly evident by now she's never told the truth. She's obfuscated, lied, spun, and avoided this. The media lapped it up until they couldn't ignore it any longer and now they are shocked.

This is no surprise to anybody following this and looking at it truthfully.

This is Hillary. To find out she has told the truth about literally anything would be shocking.

 

[Jhhnn]

Supposedly before they realized that all Pagliani's emails had also disappeared. If true, that negates any claim of an actual investigation.

Nice innuendo! Nice lead-in to the usual mindfuck of conspiracy theory, too.

 

[Bowfinger]

lol As I pointed out, everything with you is either "we know nothing" or "that's old news". Of course, your "we know nothing" doesn't stop you from claiming that it's all propaganda. And if Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) believe it, why, then it's just very effective propaganda.

Straw boy strikes again. As I've pointed out, you never let a lack of anything honest or intelligent to say keep you from saying it. You remain so angry because I call you out for asserting speculation and innuendo as fact. Sorry, but I guess accuracy has a liberal bias.

Supposedly before they realized that all Pagliani's emails had also disappeared. If true, that negates any claim of an actual investigation. ...

I wonder if that's why Pagliani wanted immunity. If he deleted all his emails and later realized that broke the law, he might request immunity to avoid self-incrimination. That is only speculation, however. (Note how I label my speculation? One of the many differences between us.)

 

[Phoenix86]

Shifting quickly to a different angle, I see, away from the previous dance routine.

An obstruction of justice charge can only be leveled as it relates to the commission of a crime, as with the outing of Valerie Plame & Scooter Libby. There has been no official declaration that any crime was committed in this affair. There can be no obstruction of justice w/o such a charge.

It's a complex issue, just because you can't follow more that one point at a time doesn't mean I'm shifting my point of view.

There's several possible crimes in play here, keep up.

 

[Phoenix86]

Supposedly before they realized that all Pagliani's emails had also disappeared. If true, that negates any claim of an actual investigation.

Unless I'm mistaking your point, it only negates one possible aspect. Even if they wanted to only accuse her of having (and granting) access to classified material when she didn't have clearance that would be enough. FYI, the server admin had 0 clearance the entire time from what I read (citation needed). It's been a long weekend and I don't recall the source of that immediately.

 

[Phoenix86]

Straw boy strikes again. As I've pointed out, you never let a lack of anything honest or intelligent to say keep you from saying it. You remain so angry because I call you out for asserting speculation and innuendo as fact. Sorry, but I guess accuracy has a liberal bias.



I wonder if that's why Pagliani wanted immunity. If he deleted all his emails and later realized that broke the law, he might request immunity to avoid self-incrimination. That is only speculation, however. (Note how I label my speculation? One of the many differences between us.)

Oh, you're back. Gone through the source data I provided by now I assume, right? We good on the point that the server had gaping holes as wide as an anal whore? K.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a complex issue, just because you can't follow more that one point at a time doesn't mean I'm shifting my point of view.

There's several possible crimes in play here, keep up.

What I offered remains true. Obstruction cannot exist w/o an underlying crime. You cannot name the crime nor likely will you ever be able to do so. That makes your ever shifting line of attack innuendo.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, you're back. Gone through the source data I provided by now I assume, right? We good on the point that the server had gaping holes as wide as an anal whore? K.

No. That's merely supposition on your part.

Nor does it matter because the server apparently wasn't compromised.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unless I'm mistaking your point, it only negates one possible aspect. Even if they wanted to only accuse her of having (and granting) access to classified material when she didn't have clearance that would be enough. FYI, the server admin had 0 clearance the entire time from what I read (citation needed). It's been a long weekend and I don't recall the source of that immediately.

So, innuendo, right?

And, uhh, the SoS doesn't have clearance to read their own inbox? Really?

 

[Phoenix86]

What I offered remains true. Obstruction cannot exist w/o an underlying crime. You cannot name the crime nor likely will you ever be able to do so. That makes your ever shifting line of attack innuendo.

It's a crime to willingly posses classified material.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Please, do go on.

 

[Phoenix86]

So, innuendo, right?

And, uhh, the SoS doesn't have clearance to read their own inbox? Really?

Sure, on a state approved system. Are you even trying to keep up?

 

[feralkid]

It's a crime to willingly posses classified material.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Please, do go on.

I'll take "they weren't classified until a later date" for $100, Alex.




.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, on a state approved system. Are you even trying to keep up?

I'm keeping up up just fine. The SoS obviously has the clearance to read their own inbox on any system.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll take "they weren't classified until a later date for $100, Alex.

I'll also take "they weren't removed from govt possession" as well. The contents of her server weren't in govt possession until she handed them over.

Neither were the contents of the server at GWB43.com before they were erased.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm keeping up up just fine. The SoS obviously has the clearance to read their own inbox on any system.

Especially when her inbox should never contain classified information if people were following the rules. It became an issue only when some of her mails were retroactively classified.

 

[waggy]

Damn a lot of double talk to justify it "they weren't classified yet" "they weren't in governemnt control until she gave them to her. so she couldn't remove them"

fucking disgusting. the way people are doing there best to defend her.

I'm not holding this situation against her. At least not until and if she gets indicted. But the way both sides are acting is disgusting.

 

[ivwshane]

Damn a lot of double talk to justify it "they weren't classified yet" "they weren't in governemnt control until she gave them to her. so she couldn't remove them"

fucking disgusting. the way people are doing there best to defend her.

I'm not holding this situation against her. At least not until and if she gets indicted. But the way both sides are acting is disgusting.

Were you disputing something?

 

[Phoenix86]

I'll take "they weren't classified until a later date" for $100, Alex.




.

Except that's not how it works... The SoS is privy to information that is clearly classified before it becomes officially classified and they are duty bound just the same. They are supposed to be able to tell the difference and protect it as such until it's declassified, not the other way around.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/06/document-completely-undermines-hillarys-classified-email-defense/

classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications.

Don't doubt the website as a source, read their source, the signed document. See section 1.

 

[Phoenix86]

I'm keeping up up just fine. The SoS obviously has the clearance to read their own inbox on any system.

But not keep it after clearance has expired or share it with those who aren't cleared like the mail admin.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/04/hillarys-highly-paid-it-guru-had-no-national-security-experience/

He had no clearance, several other sources for the same info if you doubt this source. While I can't really find a strong source, I'm not seeing anyone say he did have clearance either...